<p>Definitely get your news from multiple sources if you don’t want to be super biased on an issue before knowing all the information (this is better than trying to find an ‘unbiased’ source because while some news agencies are obviously more biased than others, everyone has a certain bias, so don’t get all your news from one place). I think as soon as you start following the news, the articles you read will give you adequate background information on the topic and you’ll find yourself becoming more knowledgeable.</p>
<p>One way I’ve found to keep myself informed is signing up for New York Times emails. I get a daily email of the day’s headlines, and I also get breaking news updates. This ensures that when I’m too lazy to actually read the news, I at least have a basic idea of what’s happening in the world at all times. It can also motivate you to go to these news sites if you see something that looks interesting or something that you don’t know a lot about.</p>
I wasn’t referring to libraries. There is a lot of high-quality information available from government sources. This isn’t ‘free’ but you have already paid with your tax dollars.</p>
<p>Lots of good data are available from almost every government agency. For example, you’ll learn far more about the economy directly from the BEA or BLS than from any of the big news agencies.
CAPITALIZATION IS AWESOME, ISN’T IT?</p>
<p>That’s true. On the other hand, I’d consider it rather negligent to vote if that’s your only source of information about the world - even if you do “sound competent”.</p>
<p>In order to become more knowledgeable of politics and other important affairs you need to be updated in all major news around you and some issues that have to do with it. The best way is making sure to read a lot about politics whether it’s news, some politics book whether old or modern. Honestly, there are just so many obvious ways but not everyone is actually willing and determined to do it.</p>
<p>@noimagination You obviously lack any imagination (Haha), and you’re one of those people who thinks someones level of intelligence is determined by the numbers they know. Personally, I’ve been learning about economics since my junior hear of high school and it’s my current major. I haven’t even completed my science requirements, but I’m very far with my economics major (thinkig of doing finance or computer science also, idk). I’m sorry that I don’t like for economics to be what I do the whole day, and like to watch CNN because it gives me a balance of news and social media like news. I’m also sorry I like to watch Pierres Morgan because of the interviews (Seth McFarlane was my favorite one recently… freakin classic!). I’m also sorry you take offense to capitilization because you’re so uptight.</p>
<p>The poster asked how to sound like he’s competent and that is the best way, IMO. Although the economy is important, it’s not the only issue at hand. If you think you can make a vote off of only that you’re the foolish one, but I assume your not stupid enough to only have that as your source of info. I posted this on my phone so sorry about mistakes.</p>
[WordNet</a> Search - 3.1](<a href=“WordNet Search - 3.1”>WordNet Search - 3.1)
S: (adv) for example, for instance, e.g. (as an example) “take ribbon snakes, for example”
If you’re interested in learning about the conflict in Syria, for example, the CIA and State Department both maintain excellent websites.</p>
<p>TV news stations are useful for monitoring ongoing stories in real-time. If something is happening right now then CNN is a good source. Otherwise, the reporting is shallow in comparison to free online information sources.</p>
<p>There’s no need to apologize for your preferences in entertainment. I like watching sports; that doesn’t mean I recommend ESPNEWS to someone interested in learning about current events. Not trying to be a jerk here, but you make too many assumptions about the motivation behind other people’s posts instead of just focusing on the content.</p>
<p>(BTW, I have watched FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and there is actually very little difference between them. You will get pretty much the same information from any of these stations. The only thing that differs is the direction and level of bias in the commentary.)</p>
<p>Fox is only evil to moonbats who don’t want their sweet Red illusions shattered. I think all three of the big cable networks are awful. Fox does have a conservative bias but it’s not “evil,” not any more than MSDNC or Crummy News Network.</p>
<p>Read news sites like the BBC and al-Jazeera. I prefer the WaPo over NY Times since they seem to be a bit more neutral. I also keep up with a lot of smaller stories from participating in a politics forum… granted most of the arguments are circular and stupid, but it does keep me in-the-know of some stuff I’d probably miss if I just stuck to mainstream media.</p>
<p>I don’t think Fox (or msnbc) is evil, just shamelessly stupid. If you have a limited initial knowledge of how politics works, getting your news from biased sources like that will just hurt you.</p>
<p>Politico has been my source of choice lately. I’ve detected very little bias.</p>
<p>Also, every time a politician says something on the news, look at factcheck.org before you choose to believe it. They rank political statements based on how true they are. They’re nonpartisan and have been calling out both candidates on a lot of BS lately.</p>
<p>WSJ has basically turned into Fox News on paper, which is good for the 53% of Fox News watchers that can actually read.</p>
<p>And I was slightly joking about CSPAN. There just isn’t anything else out there that is easily accessible and unbiased. Maybe something that isn’t 100% US based, like The Economist. </p>
<p>Personally I watch NBC but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say. And Al Sharpton’s show is nauseating. Cenk was much better.</p>
<p>A few subscriptions can get costly, but I say is the way to go to avoid a) really stupidly obvious biased network news and b) expand your vocabulary on not just regular usage words, but also of political terms and the correct spellings and such of the important things going on (in case you’d like to transcribe them into a paper later).</p>
<p>TIME is really good and cheaper than The Economist, though remember there may be student discounts for certain publications (I know Foreign Policy Magazine does) and they typically have a digital version you can access from your computer, tablet, or smartphone at any time in case you want to reference an article for in-class discussion or a paper.</p>
<p>Otherwise I would suggest viewing your local paper’s online site each morning you wake up and skim the headlines to see if there’s anything of interest.</p>
<p>Yep, like all TV. People who think one or the other is part of some biased conspiracy tend to have a loose grasp of US political in general. Especially the main theme of US politics: Whatever sells becomes part of our culture, even if it’s ridiculously stupid.</p>
<p>As a foreign-born American with a mildly outside perspective, I never understood why Fox gets singled out. The other TV networks are equally if not more ridiculous. It’s like watching a bunch of 1960s hippies dressed up in suits making fun of their own profession by passively blaming everything on “the man” when they themselves are paid corporate megaphones and probably know “the man” intimately.</p>
<p>I stand by my original statement, if someone wants to learn about politics they should learn about economics & finance and be able to see why certain companies, foreign lobbies, etc. support a certain lawmaking maneuver (financial profit). Even the country’s largest humanitarian efforts were pushed by transportation and agriculture lobbies because they cashed in on it. Everything is a mundane game of business competition, not a secret ideological war.</p>
<p>Once you get sucked into the right vs left TV culture and act like whether we call it “marriage” or not will decide the fate of humanity it’s really all downhill, no matter which side your on. The sensationalism is embarrassing.</p>
<p>College students (living in dorms) are newly-christened adults living in a claustrophobic yet culturally/racially diverse environment and not much money. They tend to be passively leftist with few specific ideological opinions just because being anything else isn’t really practical. It’s really the last place you’ll ever find mature political debate. There’s more one-sided opinion bombardment and mindless drunken protesting.</p>
<p>CNN.com is my go-to source for taking the “pulse” of the nation. Their site is easy to navigate and their headlines give a good snapshot of what is being talked about. Hit Fox for the conservative spin of things, and MSNBC/HuffPost for the liberal spin. For serious analysis use NYT or WSJ, along with the various blogs that are out there.</p>
<p>Finally, for a neutral (at least with respect to US parties), easy to understand version of things, try one of the foreign networks like BBC or Al Jazeera.</p>
<p>Basically, lots of sources, and don’t rely too much on any one.</p>
<p>Here’s another vote for the Economist - if you read it for the next few weeks before school starts, you’ll be incredibly well-informed. One thing it has that even the New York Times doesn’t is incredibly broad global coverage. I just started reading it a few months ago and have learned so much about things going on around the world that I’d never even heard about before, much less understood. Important things, things that can have a ripple effect in lots of other places. </p>
<p>Also, unlike all of the other publications/outlets mentioned, there’s no fluff to distract you and waste your time. </p>
<p>Personally, I prefer Fox of the three main news stations, but I’m not going to say it’s any better than the others. (And I definitely don’t think it’s evil or any other TV network is evil.)</p>
<p>If you’re interested in getting some knowledge on American politics, then sitting down and dividing your time between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox should actually give you a pretty good idea of American politics. It gives you what are considered the left, center, and right sides of US politics. Not really a bad starting point.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with reading US news from other countries. I enjoy reading articles from the BBC and other UK news outlets. They’re usually not all that biased, because they don’t have as much of a reason to be. That being said, Europe is generally more liberal than the US, so there’s still some bias. There’s always going to be bias.</p>
<p>Europe varies widely. Many of their right-wing (actually right-wing, as in anti-immigration, pro-technology, pro-genetic engineering, etc., not the American “conservative right”) parties have minor representation in government, whereas in the US if they so much as show themselves in public we have a riot on our hands.</p>
<p>Their economic systems are more collectivist (“leftist”), but that’s likely more a natural outcome of being ethnically homogeneous than any social engineering.</p>
<p>I would say that in Europe you genuinely have both extremes, but that the governments tend to end up moderate, perhaps more nationalistic than the US government but also more economically socialist (not counting notoriously leftist countries like France, which are left across the board).</p>
<p>In the US, it’s really a two-party system, and while they accuse each other of being “socialists”, “nazis”, “theocrats”, etc., both are actually rather generic center-left parties on the global scale and disagree on relatively little. They create semantic battleground “social issues” to falsely appear dramatically different during campaign season.</p>
Odd, I was under the presumption that NYT was historically liberal and WSJ was historically conservative. . . though there have been independent studies suggesting otherwise, they are still proven to have high rates of bias.</p>
Most local newspapers are a combination of sensationalist journalism and copy-pasting from AP stories. So either way, New Yorkers should feel blessed to have those two options for print media in their city.
If the rules about political commentary on this forum weren’t so strict, I’d enter into my standard speech about the difference between “just a political issue” and a civil rights issue. But the rules being what they are, I’ll just say that in general I agree with your post.</p>
<p>Can anyone recommend the best newspaper source to read on an Android tablet? Preferably one that isn’t too expensive. I used to love NYT until they made a 10 article/month limit online.</p>